Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-4756 - Westchester Fire Insurance Company, v. SMC Construction Corporation et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-4756 - Westchester Fire Insurance Company, v. SMC Construction Corporation et al
January 29, 2018
PDF | More
, totaling $2,538,131.42, but the supporting exhibits do not provide proof of payment for all of the expenses listed. (See Dkt. 16-8.) The annexed document lists the entries on Exhibit A for which proof of payment is outstanding. Plaintiff's supplemental filing shall provide proof of payment for these expenses, such as copies of checks or other records reflecting that payment was made. If such documentary evidence does not exist, Plaintiff shall provide a supplemental affidavit ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental submission with regard to the Motion for Default Judgment 10 by February 7, 2018. The supplemental submission shall address the following issues: (1) Plaintiff shall inform the Court whether Defendants have made any additional payments since May 2017 and whether the current total Plaintiff seeks is $1,249,834.47 plus prejudgment interest. (2) Plaintiff shall provide a summary of expenses, itemized according to category of expense (such as bond losses, attorneys' fees, and other categories of fees). (3) Plaintiff shall provide documentation of certain expenses claimed in Exhibit A to the Koch Supporting Affidavit. Exhibit A lists Plaintiff's bond losses and expenseslisting each of the relevant payments, affirming why such documentation is lacking, and describing the circumstances of payment. Plaintiff shall also state the construction project related to each expense. (4) Plaintiff shall provide supporting documentation of fees paid to service providers. The Koch Supporting Affidavit includes in the damages total certain expenses for services provided by Smart Devine; Nihill Riedley; Ace American Insurance Company; Ace Structured Products, Inc.; Legal Solutions; Tymetrix, Inc.; and Ballard Spahr LLP. Plaintiff does not provide invoices from those entities, address what specific services those entities provided, or explain why such expenses fall within the scope of the Indemnification Agreements. (See Dkt. 16-7 at 5.) Plaintiff is directed to address these deficiencies in its supplemental filing and provide the relevant documentation showing proof of payment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo on 1/29/2018. (Syed, Sofie)